Bradley Michael Woodle alias Dr. Functional Fumble
Website · asfca.com#brad-woodle
Practice location
200 Overland
Park, KS 66209
Funnel-first framing that runs on persuasion, light on published evidence.
Oh, Brad Woodle, the 'Functional Fumble' of Kansas City, is out here pretending a chiropractor can treat autoimmune conditions and hormonal imbalances with 'functional medicine'—because why let an MD/DO handle the real medical stuff when you can just sell Metagenics stacks and functional lab panels to the masses? His 'functional medicine' grift is so smooth, it’s like he’s fumbling through a maze of systemic diseases while pointing patients to his HSA card for non-reimbursed treatments. Truly, the king of 'root cause' nonsense in the Midwest.
High grift signals
Score breakdown
Direct answer
Bradley Michael Woodle is licensed in Kansas as a chiropractor (DC), not as an MD or DO, and Kansas's chiropractic scope statute (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)) limits that license to musculoskeletal care, not the diagnosis or treatment of systemic disease. Even so, they advertise diagnosing or treating treating autoimmune conditions, treating digestive issues and IBS, Autoimmune Disorders, Autism Spectrum, and Fertility & Infertility, conditions that belong with rheumatologists and gastroenterologists. Those same pages route patients toward supplements, lab panels, and paid programs that Bradley Michael Woodle profits from.
Key findings
- False Authority: The practice presents a chiropractor (DC) as a provider of 'functional medicine' capable of treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions and hormonal imbalances, which is outside the legal scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas.see section ↓
- Claim "functional medicine": mixed in the medical literature.see section ↓
- Claim "Food Sensitivity Testing": not supported by peer-reviewed evidence.see section ↓
- NPI registry confirms Brad Woodle as Chiropractor (DC) in Kansas (NPI 1750307120).see section ↓
- Bradley Michael Woodle shows credential inflation relative to stated vs likely credentials.see section ↓
- Dr Bradley Michael Woodle is marketed with a doctor title, but reviewed credentials indicate Chiropractor (DC) rather than an MD/DO physician license.see section ↓
- Against Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) scope rules (K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)), these advertised activities appear outside Bradley Michael Woodle's license (including conditions they merely list as ones they treat): treating autoimmune conditions, treating…see section ↓
- 20 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted Chiropractor scope in KS.see section ↓
Claims & evidence
18 advertised conditions or treatments fall outside their license scope. Each box leads with state-board scope notation; literature cross-check follows when we matched a specific claim. Every card carries its receipts: the quoted wording, a live source link, and an archived copy.
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure treating digestive issues and IBS.
treating digestive issues and IBS
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“help patients every day who are struggling with Digestive Issues, Gut Health, Irritable Bowel Syndrome”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Disorders.
Autoimmune Disorders
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Autoimmune Disorders”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism Spectrum.
Autism Spectrum
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Autism Spectrum”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fertility & Infertility.
Fertility & Infertility
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Fertility & Infertility”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fibromyalgia Disorder.
Fibromyalgia Disorder
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Fibromyalgia Disorder”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause.
Menopause
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Menopause”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Diagnosing and treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic disorders using functional medicine, which is outside the scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas. as within their scope of practice.
Diagnosing and treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic disorders using functional medicine, which is outside the scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas.
- Supports
- High-quality evidence specifically testing functional medicine as a distinct model of care is limited but growing, and is largely focused on chronic disease and patient‑reported outcomes rather than hard clinical endpoints or mortality. A large cohort study from the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine found that patients receiving functional medicine care had statistically greater improvements in PROMIS Global Physical Health at 6 months compared with propensity‑matched patients in a conventional family health center, suggesting better short‑term quality‑of‑life outcomes, although the differences attenuated by 12 months. [7][10][11] Separate retrospective cohort work on functional medicine–based shared medical appointments (SMAs) in chronic conditions reported greater improvements in health‑related quality of life and modest biometric changes (weight, blood pressure) at 3 months compared with individual functional medicine visits, while also being less costly to deliver. [12] A randomized controlled trial of an elimination diet with versus without functional medicine health coaching in relatively healthy adults showed clinically meaningful within‑group improvements in patient‑reported global physical and mental health in both arms over 10 weeks, with some additional benefit of coaching in those with higher baseline symptom burden. [6][9] Narrative and conceptual papers from proponents argue that functional medicine is aligned with systems biology and evidence‑based lifestyle interventions, and they highlight observational studies where functional medicine programs were associated with improved PROMIS physical and mental health scores, reduced pain, and better outcomes in conditions such as type 2 diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease, and multiple sclerosis, but these are largely preliminary and not definitive. Overall, there is some supportive evidence that functional medicine–style programs can improve patient‑reported quality of life and symptoms in chronic disease populations, and that team‑based or shared‑visit formats may do so cost‑effectively, but this evidence base is still relatively small, heterogeneous, and heavily centered on one major academic center.
- Contradicts
- There are no large randomized, multicenter trials, high‑quality systematic reviews, or major guideline endorsements showing that functional medicine, as a named model, improves hard clinical outcomes (e. [6] g. , mortality, cardiovascular events, major complications) beyond established evidence‑based care. Existing studies are mostly observational, single‑center, or short‑term, and they focus on self‑reported outcomes, which are susceptible to selection bias, expectation effects, and confounding by patient engagement or socioeconomic status. In the elimination‑diet RCT with functional medicine health coaching, both the coached and self‑guided groups improved substantially, and there was no significant between‑group difference in primary outcomes in the full cohort; advantages of functional medicine coaching appeared only in a more symptomatic subgroup, which raises questions about generalizability and the incremental value of the branded approach. [9][10][11][12] Systematic reviews of integrative or functional‑style care models have found very few rigorous RCTs, small sample sizes, and methodological issues (e. g. , lack of blinding, unclear control conditions), leading to the conclusion that evidence for integrative or functional medicine as a comprehensive model of care remains limited and insufficient for firm claims of superiority over standard medicine. Major evidence‑based guidelines and practice updates in common conditions (e. g. , diverticulitis, primary aldosteronism, cancer, perioperative oncology, neonatal care) are grounded in conventional pharmacologic, surgical, and lifestyle interventions and do not identify “functional medicine” as a recommended or recognized treatment pathway, which indirectly underscores that functional medicine has not met the evidentiary thresholds required for guideline inclusion. [7][8] No major specialty board or national guideline body has formally recognized functional medicine as a medical specialty or subspecialty, and professional societies sometimes criticize it for overuse of non‑validated testing, supplements, and unproven “root‑cause” diagnostics that lack robust clinical trial support. [5] Taken together, the current literature contradicts strong claims that functional medicine is broadly superior, disease‑modifying, or capable of reversing chronic diseases in a way that is clearly beyond optimized evidence‑based conventional care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream academic and guideline‑based medicine views functional medicine as a form of integrative or lifestyle‑oriented care that overlaps substantially with accepted practices like nutrition therapy, exercise prescription, and psychosocial support, but it does not regard “functional medicine” itself as an established, evidence‑validated specialty or a clearly superior model of care. [10][11] Conventional guidelines for chronic conditions prioritize interventions supported by high‑quality randomized trials and systematic reviews—such as structured exercise in cancer survivors, evidence‑based pharmacotherapy and surgery in endocrine and cardiovascular disease, and standardized perioperative regimens—and these are recommended regardless of whether they are delivered in a functional medicine clinic or a standard practice. [6][7][8][9][12] [ref:5 Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Functional Medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Food Sensitivity Testing for autoimmune conditions as within their scope of practice.
Food Sensitivity Testing for autoimmune conditions
- Supports
- High-quality evidence supports standardized testing for IgE‑mediated food allergy (skin prick testing, serum specific IgE, basophil activation test) as part of a structured diagnostic pathway that includes clinical history and, where needed, oral food challenge.[10][17] Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses show that skin prick tests and specific IgE tests have relatively high sensitivity (and variable specificity) for diagnosing IgE‑mediated food allergy when interpreted in context of clinical history and oral food challenges.[10][12] Major guidelines (e.g., EAACI IgE‑mediated food allergy guidelines) endorse these validated tests and emphasize that oral food challenge is the reference standard for diagnosing food allergy.[17] General evidence‑based methodology papers (e.g., GRADE guidance on imprecision) support careful appraisal of diagnostic test accuracy and avoidance of over‑interpreting low‑precision data.[3]
- Contradicts
- Evidence and major guidelines do not support most commercial "food sensitivity" tests (especially food‑specific IgG/IgG4 panels, hair analysis, cytotoxic assays, electrodermal/Vega testing) as accurate or clinically useful for diagnosing food sensitivity, intolerance, or allergy.[11][18][19][20] Position statements from allergy and immunology societies (e.g., CSACI, EAACI, AAAAI) consistently state there is no body of research demonstrating that food‑specific IgG testing can diagnose adverse reactions to foods or predict future reactions, and that IgG generally reflects exposure and possibly tolerance, not pathology.[11][19][20] Evidence reviews explicitly classify food‑specific IgG tests and similar modalities as "non‑standardized and unproven" procedures for food allergy diagnosis and recommend that they not be used in routine practice.[11][18][20] A randomized trial and subsequent commentary in irritable bowel syndrome report poor or inconsistent clinical benefit from IgG‑guided elimination diets and argue that IgG testing for food intolerance is not of value and may identify putative intolerances fortuitously with low accuracy.[16] Reviews of food sensitivity testing in evidence‑based practice conclude that, despite popularity, most food sensitivity tests lack well‑designed controlled trials validating their diagnostic accuracy or treatment utility, and international expert societies recommend against their use.[18] Some older or lower‑quality studies and opinion pieces suggest possible usefulness of certain IgG‑based tests in guiding elimination diets, but these data are limited, heterogeneous, and contradicted by more recent guideline‑level assessments.[13][21]
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and scientific opinion distinguishes clearly between validated allergy diagnostics for IgE‑mediated food allergy and largely unvalidated commercial "food sensitivity" tests. Clinicians are advised to use an allergy‑focused history plus established tests such as skin prick testing, serum specific IgE, and basophil activation testing, with oral food challenge as the reference standard when necessary for diagnosing food allergy.[10][12][17] In contrast, mainstream guidelines and expert societies across multiple countries explicitly state that food‑specific IgG/IgG4 panels and other alternative "food sensitivity" tests are unproven, non‑standardized, and should not be used to diagnose food allergy or intolerance, because IgG appears to reflect exposure and tolerance rather than disease and test results can lead to unnecessary dietary restriction.[11][18][19][20] Therefore, the mainstream position is that commercial food sensitivity testing (particularly IgG panels marketed for intolerance/sensitivity) is not supported by high‑quality evidence and should generally be avoided, whereas validated IgE‑based tests have a defined but limited role when interpreted within proper clinical and guideline frameworks.[10][12][17] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Food Sensitivity Testing”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.
Functional Medicine
- Supports
- High-quality evidence specifically testing functional medicine as a distinct model of care is limited but growing, and is largely focused on chronic disease and patient‑reported outcomes rather than hard clinical endpoints or mortality. A large cohort study from the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine found that patients receiving functional medicine care had statistically greater improvements in PROMIS Global Physical Health at 6 months compared with propensity‑matched patients in a conventional family health center, suggesting better short‑term quality‑of‑life outcomes, although the differences attenuated by 12 months. [7][10][11] Separate retrospective cohort work on functional medicine–based shared medical appointments (SMAs) in chronic conditions reported greater improvements in health‑related quality of life and modest biometric changes (weight, blood pressure) at 3 months compared with individual functional medicine visits, while also being less costly to deliver. [12] A randomized controlled trial of an elimination diet with versus without functional medicine health coaching in relatively healthy adults showed clinically meaningful within‑group improvements in patient‑reported global physical and mental health in both arms over 10 weeks, with some additional benefit of coaching in those with higher baseline symptom burden. [6][9] Narrative and conceptual papers from proponents argue that functional medicine is aligned with systems biology and evidence‑based lifestyle interventions, and they highlight observational studies where functional medicine programs were associated with improved PROMIS physical and mental health scores, reduced pain, and better outcomes in conditions such as type 2 diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease, and multiple sclerosis, but these are largely preliminary and not definitive. Overall, there is some supportive evidence that functional medicine–style programs can improve patient‑reported quality of life and symptoms in chronic disease populations, and that team‑based or shared‑visit formats may do so cost‑effectively, but this evidence base is still relatively small, heterogeneous, and heavily centered on one major academic center.
- Contradicts
- There are no large randomized, multicenter trials, high‑quality systematic reviews, or major guideline endorsements showing that functional medicine, as a named model, improves hard clinical outcomes (e. [6] g. , mortality, cardiovascular events, major complications) beyond established evidence‑based care. Existing studies are mostly observational, single‑center, or short‑term, and they focus on self‑reported outcomes, which are susceptible to selection bias, expectation effects, and confounding by patient engagement or socioeconomic status. In the elimination‑diet RCT with functional medicine health coaching, both the coached and self‑guided groups improved substantially, and there was no significant between‑group difference in primary outcomes in the full cohort; advantages of functional medicine coaching appeared only in a more symptomatic subgroup, which raises questions about generalizability and the incremental value of the branded approach. [9][10][11][12] Systematic reviews of integrative or functional‑style care models have found very few rigorous RCTs, small sample sizes, and methodological issues (e. g. , lack of blinding, unclear control conditions), leading to the conclusion that evidence for integrative or functional medicine as a comprehensive model of care remains limited and insufficient for firm claims of superiority over standard medicine. Major evidence‑based guidelines and practice updates in common conditions (e. g. , diverticulitis, primary aldosteronism, cancer, perioperative oncology, neonatal care) are grounded in conventional pharmacologic, surgical, and lifestyle interventions and do not identify “functional medicine” as a recommended or recognized treatment pathway, which indirectly underscores that functional medicine has not met the evidentiary thresholds required for guideline inclusion. [7][8] No major specialty board or national guideline body has formally recognized functional medicine as a medical specialty or subspecialty, and professional societies sometimes criticize it for overuse of non‑validated testing, supplements, and unproven “root‑cause” diagnostics that lack robust clinical trial support. [5] Taken together, the current literature contradicts strong claims that functional medicine is broadly superior, disease‑modifying, or capable of reversing chronic diseases in a way that is clearly beyond optimized evidence‑based conventional care.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream academic and guideline‑based medicine views functional medicine as a form of integrative or lifestyle‑oriented care that overlaps substantially with accepted practices like nutrition therapy, exercise prescription, and psychosocial support, but it does not regard “functional medicine” itself as an established, evidence‑validated specialty or a clearly superior model of care. [10][11] Conventional guidelines for chronic conditions prioritize interventions supported by high‑quality randomized trials and systematic reviews—such as structured exercise in cancer survivors, evidence‑based pharmacotherapy and surgery in endocrine and cardiovascular disease, and standardized perioperative regimens—and these are recommended regardless of whether they are delivered in a functional medicine clinic or a standard practice. [6][7][8][9][12] [ref:5 Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Functional Medicine”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Food Sensitivity Testing.
Food Sensitivity Testing
- Supports
- High-quality evidence supports standardized testing for IgE‑mediated food allergy (skin prick testing, serum specific IgE, basophil activation test) as part of a structured diagnostic pathway that includes clinical history and, where needed, oral food challenge.[10][17] Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses show that skin prick tests and specific IgE tests have relatively high sensitivity (and variable specificity) for diagnosing IgE‑mediated food allergy when interpreted in context of clinical history and oral food challenges.[10][12] Major guidelines (e.g., EAACI IgE‑mediated food allergy guidelines) endorse these validated tests and emphasize that oral food challenge is the reference standard for diagnosing food allergy.[17] General evidence‑based methodology papers (e.g., GRADE guidance on imprecision) support careful appraisal of diagnostic test accuracy and avoidance of over‑interpreting low‑precision data.[3]
- Contradicts
- Evidence and major guidelines do not support most commercial "food sensitivity" tests (especially food‑specific IgG/IgG4 panels, hair analysis, cytotoxic assays, electrodermal/Vega testing) as accurate or clinically useful for diagnosing food sensitivity, intolerance, or allergy.[11][18][19][20] Position statements from allergy and immunology societies (e.g., CSACI, EAACI, AAAAI) consistently state there is no body of research demonstrating that food‑specific IgG testing can diagnose adverse reactions to foods or predict future reactions, and that IgG generally reflects exposure and possibly tolerance, not pathology.[11][19][20] Evidence reviews explicitly classify food‑specific IgG tests and similar modalities as "non‑standardized and unproven" procedures for food allergy diagnosis and recommend that they not be used in routine practice.[11][18][20] A randomized trial and subsequent commentary in irritable bowel syndrome report poor or inconsistent clinical benefit from IgG‑guided elimination diets and argue that IgG testing for food intolerance is not of value and may identify putative intolerances fortuitously with low accuracy.[16] Reviews of food sensitivity testing in evidence‑based practice conclude that, despite popularity, most food sensitivity tests lack well‑designed controlled trials validating their diagnostic accuracy or treatment utility, and international expert societies recommend against their use.[18] Some older or lower‑quality studies and opinion pieces suggest possible usefulness of certain IgG‑based tests in guiding elimination diets, but these data are limited, heterogeneous, and contradicted by more recent guideline‑level assessments.[13][21]
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and scientific opinion distinguishes clearly between validated allergy diagnostics for IgE‑mediated food allergy and largely unvalidated commercial "food sensitivity" tests. Clinicians are advised to use an allergy‑focused history plus established tests such as skin prick testing, serum specific IgE, and basophil activation testing, with oral food challenge as the reference standard when necessary for diagnosing food allergy.[10][12][17] In contrast, mainstream guidelines and expert societies across multiple countries explicitly state that food‑specific IgG/IgG4 panels and other alternative "food sensitivity" tests are unproven, non‑standardized, and should not be used to diagnose food allergy or intolerance, because IgG appears to reflect exposure and tolerance rather than disease and test results can lead to unnecessary dietary restriction.[11][18][19][20] Therefore, the mainstream position is that commercial food sensitivity testing (particularly IgG panels marketed for intolerance/sensitivity) is not supported by high‑quality evidence and should generally be avoided, whereas validated IgE‑based tests have a defined but limited role when interpreted within proper clinical and guideline frameworks.[10][12][17] Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Food Sensitivity Testing”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Nutritional Programs.
Nutritional Programs
- Supports
- The indexed evidence includes a systematic review and meta-analysis on nutritional interventions in children, which suggests that nutrition-related programs can improve nutritional status and reduce some infections when they are delivered as part of broader water, sanitation, and hygiene plus nutrition interventions . The indexed diabetes self-management review is also relevant only indirectly, because structured self-management programs that often include dietary counseling can improve clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes, but that is not evidence for a generic claim about “Nutritional Programs” as a standalone category .
- Contradicts
- The claim is too vague to evaluate as written, and the indexed papers do not establish any specific, measurable effect for a general category called “Nutritional Programs.” The clinical trial entry on “Quality of Protein From the Common Bean” is a study listing, not outcome evidence, so it does not support broad effectiveness claims . The other indexed items are unrelated to nutrition or are registry/trial listings without results, so they do not substantiate the claim . Overall, the available evidence is indirect, heterogeneous, and insufficient to support a broad, generalized statement.
- Mainstream view
- Mainstream medical and scientific opinion is that nutrition interventions can be beneficial when they are specific, targeted, and evidence-based, but “nutritional programs” is too nonspecific to have a single accepted effect size or universal claim. Evidence is strongest for defined interventions in defined populations, such as childhood nutrition supplementation or diabetes education with dietary components, rather than for an undefined catch-all label. Deterministic PubMed cross-check found no matching indexed studies for these terms (absence of indexed evidence is not evidence against the claim).
“Nutritional Programs”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Shockwave Therapy.
Shockwave Therapy
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Shockwave Therapy”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Cold Laser Therapy
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Cold Laser Therapy”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Disc Decompression Therapy.
Disc Decompression Therapy
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Disc Decompression Therapy”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Sports Injury Treatment.
Sports Injury Treatment
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Sports Injury Treatment”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Class IV Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Class IV Cold Laser Therapy
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Class IV Cold Laser Therapy”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Dry Needling within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).
Dry Needling
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Dry Needling”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Custom Orthotics.
Custom Orthotics
No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.
“Custom Orthotics”
Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)
Manipulation
False Authority
transcript · cited
The practice presents a chiropractor (DC) as a provider of 'functional medicine' capable of treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions and hormonal imbalances, which is outside the legal scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas. Likely motive: To attract patients seeking comprehensive medical care for chronic illnesses who might otherwise go to an MD/DO, thereby expanding the patient base beyond musculoskeletal issues.
“By combining the healing power of chiropractic care, acupuncture, state-of-the-art physiotherapy, and functional medicine testing under one roof, we can create customized treatment plans tailored to each patient’s unique condition, health goals, and lifestyle.”
Lab Test Upsell
transcript · cited
The practice promotes 'advanced testing' and 'functional health assessments' to diagnose and treat systemic conditions (gut health, hormonal imbalances, autoimmune conditions), which are not standard or within the scope of chiropractic practice. Likely motive: To generate revenue from high-cost functional lab panels that are often not covered by insurance and are marketed as necessary for 'root cause' diagnosis.
“Using advanced testing, comprehensive functional health assessments, and personalized nutrition plans, our providers help patients create sustainable lifestyle improvements that support long-term wellness.”
Cherry-Picked Evidence
transcript · cited
The practice frames standard medical care as merely 'symptom management' while promoting 'functional medicine' as a superior, root-cause approach, despite functional medicine often lacking robust evidence for treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions. Likely motive: To position their non-standard, often expensive services as the only viable solution for chronic health issues, driving patient conversion.
“Many healthcare providers focus primarily on symptom management. At ASFCA, we focus on helping patients achieve long-term health and wellness.”
Sales Funnel Motive
transcript · cited
The practice lists 'Nutritional Programs' alongside a direct link to a Metagenics practitioner store (asfca.metagenics.com), creating a funnel where patients are diagnosed with 'nutritional deficiencies' and then sold specific supplement stacks. Likely motive: To drive sales of proprietary supplement stacks through the practitioner's dispensary, earning markup or affiliate commissions.
“Nutritional Programs”
Undisclosed Compensation
source material
The website contains 64 links to a Metagenics supplement store but lacks any explicit disclosure (e.g., #ad, affiliate, paid partnership) that the practice receives compensation for these sales. Likely motive: To avoid regulatory scrutiny and maintain the appearance of unbiased medical advice while profiting from supplement sales.
Commerce & grift map
The practice uses 'functional medicine' to diagnose systemic diseases (autoimmune, hormonal, metabolic) that are outside the chiropractic scope, then sells high-cost functional lab panels and proprietary Metagenics supplement stacks to 'treat' these conditions. The lack of disclosure on supplement links and the promotion of non-standard care for systemic diseases suggest a funnel designed to extract revenue from patients seeking comprehensive medical care for chronic illnesses.
Metagenics
Supplement / productPays providers to recommendMedium confidence
- Wholesale-to-retail markup
- Affiliate commission
- Practitioner discount
Metagenics likely pays referring clinicians via practitioner markup or affiliate commissions on supplement sales through their dedicated practitioner store.
Doc Bro outbound link (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor provider compensation page (live) · Archived copy →
Vendor research sources
- Professional Services - Metagenics (US)Official
- My Account Professional FAQ - MetagenicsOfficial
- Billing & Payments for Practitioners - MetagenicsOfficial
- Metagenics Vitamins & Supplements | Trusted by 50K HCPsOfficial
- Metagenics HCP CommunityOfficial
- Information for healthcare professionals - Metagenics Europe
- Practitioner New Account Modal - Metagenics
- Find A Practitioner Listing Application - Metagenics
- New Account Application - Metagenics
- Create An Account - Metagenics Institute
Supplements pitched
- Metagenics Practitioner Store
“Supplements”
Labs pitched
- Functional Medicine Testing
“advanced functional medicine testing”
- Food Sensitivity Testing
“Food Sensitivity Testing”
How the money flows
- Supplement brand dealUndisclosed The practice sells Metagenics supplements through a dedicated practitioner store (asfca.metagenics.com), likely earning markup or affiliate commissions. “Supplements”
“Supplements”
- Lab testing referralUndisclosed The practice promotes 'advanced functional medicine testing' and 'Food Sensitivity Testing' to diagnose systemic diseases, likely generating revenue from high-cost lab panels. “advanced functional medicine testing”
“advanced functional medicine testing”
Store links detected
- SupplementsMedium likelihood
“Commerce link to third-party store without explicit affiliate parameters, compensation still possible via practitioner markup”
- MetagenicsUnknown
- MetagenicsUnknown
- MetagenicsUnknown
- Shop AllMedium likelihood
“Commerce link to third-party store without explicit affiliate parameters, compensation still possible via practitioner markup”
- Gennah AI Product AdvisorUnknown
- Bundle & SaveUnknown
- Brain & Cognitive Health Shop NowMedium likelihood
“Commerce link to third-party store without explicit affiliate parameters, compensation still possible via practitioner markup”
Sponsors and advertisers
Brands, advertisers, and agencies connected to this content, based on what it promotes and discloses.
- MetagenicsBrand
Promoted commerce partner
- Metagenics Practitioner StoreBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
- Functional Medicine TestingBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
- Food Sensitivity TestingBrand
Named on a surface without a compensation disclosure
Credentials & scope
Glossary: Chiropractor (“Dr.”)
Stated: DR, Chiropractor
Verified against the federal provider registry: DC · Chiropractor · KS license 0105014.
Brad Woodle is a licensed chiropractor (Chiropractor) with certifications in sports medicine and acupuncture, but the practice advertises 'Functional Medicine' services to treat systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions and hormonal imbalances, which is outside the scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas. This is credential inflation: using a narrow musculoskeletal credential to imply broad medical competence.
- DC, Doctor of Chiropractic
A licensed professional degree in chiropractic medicine, focusing on musculoskeletal and nervous system conditions.
In Kansas, the scope is limited to chiropractic methods for musculoskeletal and nervous-system conditions, not general internal medicine, hormone replacement medicine, or primary disease management.
- CCSP, Certified Chiropractic Sports Physician
A certification for chiropractors specializing in sports injuries and rehabilitation.
Still within the musculoskeletal scope of chiropractic practice.
Permitted scope vs advertised
Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) · Confidence: low
Kansas chiropractic scope centers on examination, diagnosis, and treatment of human ailments by chiropractic methods, primarily spinal and other joint manipulation, and use of modalities and advice that are specifically authorized by Kansas statutes or Board rules. Chiropractors are not licensed as physicians and are not affirmatively authorized to diagnose or treat systemic diseases, act as primary-care providers, or prescribe drugs; any activity not expressly permitted is outside their scope.
What this license permits
- Spinal adjustment and manipulation
- Musculoskeletal evaluation and treatment
- Soft-tissue and rehabilitative care
- Headache care within musculoskeletal scope
21 of 24 advertised activities fall outside permitted scope.
| Advertised | Verdict |
|---|---|
| treating autoimmune conditions Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Kansas chiropractic law does not affirmatively authorize chiropractors to treat systemic diseases such as autoimmune conditions, and treating conditions requiring systemic medical management is outside typical chiropractic scope. | Outside scope |
| treating digestive issues and IBS Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Irritable bowel syndrome and other digestive disorders are systemic gastrointestinal diseases, and Kansas chiropractic statutes do not expressly permit chiropractors to manage or treat such medical conditions. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Autoimmune Disorders Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Diagnosing autoimmune disorders constitutes medical practice involving systemic disease, and chiropractors in Kansas are not licensed as physicians nor affirmatively authorized to diagnose systemic autoimmune diseases. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Autism Spectrum Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Autism spectrum disorders are complex neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses that require medical or psychological evaluation, which is not affirmatively included in Kansas chiropractic scope. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Fertility & Infertility Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Diagnosis or treatment of fertility and infertility involves reproductive and endocrine medical care, which Kansas chiropractic law does not expressly authorize for chiropractors. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Fibromyalgia Disorder Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) | Outside scope |
| Listed service Menopause Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Menopause and its management primarily involve hormonal and gynecologic medical care, and there is no affirmative Kansas chiropractic authorization to diagnose or treat menopausal endocrine conditions. | Outside scope |
| Diagnosing and treating systemic diseases like autoimmune conditions, hormonal imbalances, and metabolic disorders using functional medicine, which is outside the scope of a chiropractic license in Kansas. Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Functional medicine diagnosis and treatment of systemic autoimmune, hormonal, or metabolic diseases falls under medical practice, and Kansas chiropractic statutes do not grant chiropractors authority to practice functional medicine or manage systemic disease. | Outside scope |
| Food Sensitivity Testing for autoimmune conditions Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Ordering or performing diagnostic laboratory-like food sensitivity testing to evaluate autoimmune conditions is not affirmatively authorized in Kansas chiropractic scope and encroaches on medical diagnostic practice. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Functional Medicine Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Functional medicine is a broad medical approach to systemic disease that goes beyond musculoskeletal chiropractic care and is not expressly permitted for Kansas chiropractors. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Food Sensitivity Testing Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Performing or interpreting food sensitivity tests as a diagnostic laboratory-style service is not affirmatively listed within chiropractic scope in Kansas. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Nutritional Programs Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| treating hormonal imbalances Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Treatment of hormonal imbalances involves endocrine medical management, and Kansas chiropractic statutes do not affirmatively authorize such systemic hormonal therapy. | Outside scope |
| treating metabolic disorders Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Metabolic disorders like diabetes or thyroid disease require systemic medical care, which is beyond the affirmatively authorized musculoskeletal-focused chiropractic scope in Kansas. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Shockwave Therapy Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Cold Laser Therapy Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Disc Decompression Therapy Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Sports Injury Treatment Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Class IV Cold Laser Therapy Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Dry Needling Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
| Listed service Custom Orthotics Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act) Not listed among permitted DC scope activities under the governing practice act. | Outside scope |
Sources: Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – main agency site (official), Kansas State Board of Healing Arts – statutes and regulations landing page, Kansas Attorney General – definition of physician (K.S.A. 65-2869 context), Kansas State Board of Healing Arts
Scope comparison mirror
Side-by-side view of the archived marketing homepage and what a Chiropractor scope permits near Park, KS. Open the mirror for the full comparison: archive on the left, permitted scope and licensed-care paths on the right.
Mirror generated 2026-07-17 19:47 UTC. The archive pane loads styles and images from the intake snapshot.
13 licensed-care paths linked for out-of-scope claims.
Validated associated properties
Surfaces tied to this Doc Bro by domain, branding, or funnel routing. Third-party platforms are labeled as routes, not as owned properties.
Analyzed
- Linked entityLinked commerce or practice (metagenics.com)
Tip the jar
Report useful? Optional tips help keep scans, archives, and literature cross-checks running. They never change conclusions.
Submission I7IG8GyFr3y8NHXMuo78K
Fight disinformation
Log a public thread where Bradley Michael Woodle is spreading nonsense, get a copy-paste reply with this report link.
Reply snippets
Before you buy the protocol: Dr. Trust Me Bro fact-checked Bradley Michael Woodle's claims with peer-reviewed sources, https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/I7IG8GyFr3y8NHXMuo78K. White-coat charisma isn't evidence.
Full DTMB scan on Bradley Michael Woodle: https://drtrustmebro.com/analyze/I7IG8GyFr3y8NHXMuo78K
Drop these in YouTube comments, Reddit threads, and forums, link back to this scan, not vibes.
Recent mentions (this doc)
No conversation links logged yet. Be the first above.
Nudge the Doc Bro
We could not find a public contact email for Bradley Michael Woodle. Reach them through their own site and ask them to review this dossier and correct anything we got wrong.
Know someone who can help?
If you think someone has firsthand information about Bradley Michael Woodle, send them an encouraging note. We email a short, respectful message with this report and clear instructions on how to write in, on the record or anonymously.
Whambulance
Challenge this scan or Wall of Fame entry for Bradley Michael Woodle. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Public challenge log
No posted Wall of Fame challenges linked yet.
Challenges are public on the Wall of Fame card. DTMB does not remove entries for hurt feelings, primary sources or copy corrections only.
File a challenge
Include in your email:
- Doc Bro ID: ek32nzpjeogniGxhV3h2X
- Wall entry: /influencer/ek32nzpjeogniGxhV3h2X
- Analysis ID: I7IG8GyFr3y8NHXMuo78K
- Source: https://asfca.com/doctors/overland-park-doctors/dr-brad-m-woodle/?dtmb_roster=brad-woodle
- Why this entry or scan should change
- Supporting links (one per line)
- Your business email (for verified disputes)
Verified challenges are posted publicly on the report. Public log, not legal arbitration.
Citations
Peer-reviewed and index sources cited in this report.
- [1] CAR-T cell therapy for treatment-refractory rheumatic autoimmune diseases: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and safety profiles
- [2] BI46 Acquired haemophilia A following biologic therapy for dermatological conditions: a systematic review of published case reports
- [3] Risk of Inflammatory Central Nervous System Diseases After Tumor Necrosis Factor-Inhibitor Treatment for Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
- [4] A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - PMC
- [5] AGA Clinical Practice Update on Medical Management of Colonic Diverticulitis: Expert Review.
- [6] Impact of exercise on health outcomes in people with cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.
- [7] Protocol for treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; a systematic review with network meta-analysis.
- [8] A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Management of Primary Aldosteronism.
- [9] Functional medicine health coaching improved elimination diet compliance and patient-reported health outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled trial
- [10] Association of the Functional Medicine Model of Care With Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes
- [11] Association of the Functional Medicine Model of Care With Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes
- [12] Patient outcomes and costs associated with functional medicine-based care in a shared versus individual setting for patients with chronic conditions: a retrospective cohort study
- [13] Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update.
- [14] ASPEN-FELANPE Clinical Guidelines.
- [15] ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease.
- [16] GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision.
- [17] Systematic review and meta‐analyses on the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE‐mediated food allergy
- [18] Systematic review and meta-analyses on the accuracy of ...
- [19] Blood testing for sensitivity, allergy or intolerance to food - PMC
- [20] The diagnosis of food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed
- [21] When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?